Occidentalism
Duc, sequere, aut de via decede!

Debito has wikipedia entry altered

August 25th, 2008 . by Matt

Japanprobe reports that Debito’s wikipedia entry has been edited and the criticism removed after he requested that people make alterations on his blog.

However just because changes were made does not mean that it will not be changed again or reverted.


28 Responses to “Debito has wikipedia entry altered”

  1. comment number 1 by: ViinatoMoh

    There is criticism still there – it just was reworked throughout the article instead of being in one section.

  2. comment number 2 by: nigelboy

    Saw this at Japantoday

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/shukan-post/view/2channel-founder-says-dont-blame-him-for-criminals-posts#tool_button

    Arudou Debito at 05:54 AM JST – 27th August

    “Oops, referential links didn’t come out, so let me repost them here:

    January 2006 court order: http://www.debito.org/2channelsojou.html

    The libelous quotes are still on 2ch: http://www.google.com/search?q=2ch+イラク アルドウィンクル&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&filter=0

    Impending Internet legislation: http://www.debito.org/?p=1376

    If the quotes are very harmful to him as Debito says, why reference (advertise) them on another BBS??

  3. comment number 3 by: KenYN

    If the quotes are very harmful to him as Debito says, why reference (advertise) them on another BBS??

    I think that’s a rhetorical question!

    Of course, it’s like him complaining about his daughters complaining about their names being on Wikipedia when a) the complaining just highlights their names, and of course b) their names and far worse, such as calling your step-father, his child’s guardian, an alcoholic child-abuser, and indeed publishing the address of his daughter’s home in America, whilst taking enough care to blank out his own work fax number.

    With all the fuss about his daughters’ names I’ve ended up reading that Homecoming page quite often, and the more I do the more creepy everything feels. Yuck!

  4. comment number 4 by: ponta.

    nigelboy Says:
    August 26th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

    Saw this at Japantoday

    saw this at Debito org

    2channel founder says don’t blame him for criminals’ posts

    Courtesy Japan Today, undated, but downloaded August 27, 2008

    http://www.debito.org/?p=1883

    He might be a fan of occidentalism.

    I hope he will realize that Debito org is becoming worse than 2 channel.

  5. comment number 5 by: LB

    “I’ve ended up reading that Homecoming page quite often, and the more I do the more creepy everything feels. Yuck!”

    Yup. The boy has serious issues. Really, deeply, majorly serious issues. Odd how he covered up his daughter’s birthdate but left her name, address, his parent’s names, where his stepdad works, his stepdad’s fax number….

    Why not just post their SSN’s while he’s at it? And some photos to make the disclosure complete? Sheesh…

  6. comment number 6 by: Jerry Billows

    LB, Ken —

    There has to be a logical explanation as to why he doesn’t just take down all of the digital photographs, personal contact information, etc. from his own website.

    Surely, he’s reading all of this correspondence on these blogs like a hawk. He always has, if I’m not mistaken.

    So why?

    Is it pride? (He can’t admit he made a mistake?)

    Is it fear? (He doesn’t want look like he’s caving into public pressure because he doesn’t know what will happen next?)

    Is it confusion? (He doesn’t realize the contradiction in what he demands from Wikipedia that he doesn’t do himself?)

    Is it stupidity? (He has no idea what anyone is talking about?)

    Is it anger? (He suddenly realizes the mistake and he’s hoping it will all just go away?)

    Like I said, it’s fascinating because I don’t understand why he just doesn’t take it all down.

  7. comment number 7 by: LB

    “Surely, he’s reading all of this correspondence on these blogs like a hawk.”

    Oh yeah. I’m sure of it. He knows who I am, and he knows people I know, and for a while there if I said “boo” he was running to them crying about it.

    Then they basically told him to shut up and go away, or worse yet more-or-less took my side, and so he went away to sulk.

    Hiya Davey!

  8. comment number 8 by: CaptPorridge

    Matt,

    I need you buddy, Somethings up and it’s gonna be huge… Not JMS related..
    I lost your email, can you drop me a line [email protected]

  9. comment number 9 by: CaptPorridge

    Matt I got a reply from you, but the email address was a little strange.

    Sorry to be a little secretive!

    Could you email from the address you used before. I forget it but when I do a search on it, it’ll come up.

    Or is your contact info available anywhere on your blog? I’ve looked in the past, but never saw it.

    Thanks,

  10. comment number 10 by: LB

    If anyone wants a good laugh, go check out the discussion page on the Debito article. He’s been writing to the Wikipedia editors directly, and it is pure Debito. Also check his talk page. All I can say is “wow”.

    He claims to be so concerned with how he is portrayed on Wikipedia, yet he has succeeded in doing far more damage to his reputation and image by opening his yap to scream at them. He is so obviously and completely clueless it is both sad and hilarious at the same time.

    Oh, and he is trumpeting Citizenpedia as being “fair”. He would say that, he vetted and approved the bio his buddy John Stephenson put up – right down to Debito’s ridiculous claim that “Japanese Only” counts as two books since it is out in two languages with two different ISBNs (seriously. He was arguing that on Wiki). Does he not know what ISBNs are? By his reasoning, J.K. Rowling has “written” hundreds of books, what with all the translations!

  11. comment number 11 by: KenYN

    LB, Debito rationalises why he doesn’t debate outside of his own site, but looking at him laid bare there you can see the real reason, he doesn’t like it when he cannot control the conversation. And he also seems to be convinced that “J Readings” is his ex-pal from Japan Review – it’s always amazing how many ex-pals he has…

  12. comment number 12 by: LB

    Ken – actually it looks more like he dislikes debate outside his site not only because he can’t control the conversation, but because everyone will be able to see he can’t even maintain a conversation. It is pathetic:
    Debito: “The JapanReview.net review is unusable!”
    Editor1: “Could you explain why?”
    Debito: “WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT IS YOUR CONNECTION TO JAPANREVIEW?”
    Editor2: “Editor1’s connection if any is not relevant. Now, why is JapanReview unusable, please?”
    Debito: “Let the record show the editors are a bunch of internet bullies covering for each other!”
    Editor1: “Stop insulting the editors, and answer the question: why is JapanReview unusable?”
    Debito: “Soylent Green is people!!! You’re all biased trolls!”
    Editor2: “What?!?”
    Debito: “LALALALALALALA….”

    Et cetera ad nauseum.

    “it’s always amazing how many ex-pals he has…”
    No, it’s not really amazing. I’ve seen him make snide insinuating comments to people who are helping him, and then close with “not trying to sound accusatory or anything….” Then why make the comment? He is fundamentally incapable of playing nice with others, and judging from what I have heard and read of his record, always has been. He’s got the Midas touch in reverse – everything he touches turns to shit.

    But it is always someone else’s fault. 😉

  13. comment number 13 by: ViinatoMoh

    Maybe someone with a PHD in East Asia-related degrees could sign himself or herself up on Citizendium and begin editing the Arudou Debito page. Since he or she has a PHD, he or she has equal footing with the original author of the page.

  14. comment number 14 by: john k

    KenYn, LB

    There actually very few websites/blogs that are totally “open” and “free”. The author(s) of said web page generally wishes to control its contents, because it is “his/her” web page. There is a very personal connection. There are many websites written by “a person” who feels they are ‘saying something’ or wants to ‘say something’. It is natural that they wish like-minded others to contribute rather than those that oppose it or criticise it. Very few welcome opposing views simply to explore the opposing view, to gauge if it actually warrants some merit for real debate. No one likes a critic.

    Can you imagine being a sole strong “Green” activist and walking into a room full of Oil company CEO capitalists. Then trying to show them “the error of their ways”. The welcome would be rather frosty!

    Safety in numbers…and that is what almost all websites are all about. A place for the disenfranchised to join together. Preaching to the converted. One assumes the friendly open nature of the front page is an invitation for rational objective comments. There more one gets into them, the more one realises “that it ain’t so..”, there is always an underlying subjective bias to the editorial content.

    Bottom line, do you have friends you despise and constantly disagree with, more than likely no…why, because you don’t want to be associated with them. So, why is the author of a blog any different?

  15. comment number 15 by: ViinatoMoh

    john k: This is why we should have other PHD holders look through the article about Debito on Citizendium: That way there will be an effective debate about the content and there will be a better Citizendium article.

  16. comment number 16 by: john k

    ViinatoMoh

    I don’t understand the link between having a PHD and Citizendum? Care to explain..?

  17. comment number 17 by: ViinatoMoh

    Citizendium gives more “power” and “weight” to people with relevant degrees in the specific field. “Editors” (who prove their qualifications) have more power than “Authors.”

  18. comment number 18 by: john k

    I think that’s where you miss the point. A blog or rather the authors of blobs are the masters of their own domain. As I have noted above. Just as picking up say a right-wing news paper, it shouldn’t come as any surprise to a left-wing reader that their views are opposite. What difference would having a PhD have to the author of a right-wing news paper have…the message remains the same. Perhaps written more eloquently, but that’s all.

    Otherwise you are saying anyone having a chat in pub is not ‘qualified’ to have a chat because they do not have a relevant degree in Football or Baseball or Politics or Religion etc. Clearly that is nonsense. Blogs are no different to meeting people down the pub for a chat….if you think they are anything other than that, I am afraid you are deluded.

    Since i could get a handful of extremists, all with PhDs to add “weight” and “power” to my arguments/position…as you often find in Green issues or anti-vivisectionists….just because they have PhDs you claim there actions are suddenly relevant and pertinent. I don’t think so.

    Just as asking someone to read The Sun newspaper (UK tabloid newspaper) then say, Nature. Editorial content does not require a qualification. Sound judgement and outlining the facts and exploring the facts form both sides does. Which makes for better reading, The Sun Newspaper or Nature?

    But which is more respected and factual, no contest, Nature. However, the readership is very low and is of an academic nature. The Sun newspaper may not be as esoteric as Nature, but despite its sensationalist tabloid journalism is right far more times than it is wrong. Not 1 PhD among them. (An old uni ‘friend’ of mine used to be its Sub-Editor)

    You are advocating Blogs to be like books or peer review magazine. That is not the nature of a blog. Only blogs that claim to be so are….very very few blogs claim to be the last bastion of intelligent debate/information. It would be rather arrogant of a blog to do so, unless you’re someone like Richard Dawkins for example.

    If you have a compliant, valid or otherwise, why should having a PhD make your complaint more or less valid. It is a personal thing…and that is the nature of a Blog. Its personal to the author/editor.

  19. comment number 19 by: ViinatoMoh

    John K: Is the entire reply above addressed to me?

    If so, Citizendium is NOT a blog. It is a wiki. The difference between Citizendium and Wikipedia is that Larry Sanger (the founder of Citizendium) exercises a higher level of control over CZ and that academic credentials grant more power.

    Yes, John Stephenson wrote the Arudou Debito article, but the ultimate authority lies with Sanger, not Stephenson. It’s a matter of convincing Sanger and the Citizendium community that revision A is better than revision B.

  20. comment number 20 by: ViinatoMoh

    BTW in terms of your critique of blogs vs. peer-reviewed I agree with that in relation to blogs and wikis. However that is the system that Citizendium uses.

  21. comment number 21 by: john k

    ViinatoMoh

    Agreed Citizendium is not a blog. But it is in the same vein as Wiki.

    This is one of the problems with Wikipedia, which I’m not sure many people realise. It is ‘peer’ based. But not in the true academic sense. It clearly says its entries are based upon “status of consensus”…so all you need is a majority of people saying X and it is accepted. Reminds me of History being written by the victors!

    Whereas Citizendium claims to be more grown up version. It says:
    “Recently, for the first time in history, global groups of people, working in “real time,” have been creating content without any single person being solely responsible for it.”
    (I have written many peer reviewed papers published in the International field). The problem with this statement is that everything becomes a committee decision i.e. it is watered down! This does not aid progression of knowledge, it slows it down and often muddies the waters.

  22. comment number 22 by: KenYN

    For those of you into cyberstalking or whatever, I noticed that this is his father’s wiki page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Luther_Schofill,_Jr.

    I agree with Debito’s general opinion that Wikipedia can be a bit of a cess-pit, etc, but he’s not the first and he won’t be the last to publically spit the dummy over The Wikipedia Way. He could have quickly and easily solved the whole JapanReview story with a bit more tact.

  23. comment number 23 by: fh

    Tact is one thing you won’t get from Debito. If he had any, we wouldn’t even be here with him carrying on with his anti-anti-foreigner ways.

  24. comment number 24 by: KenYN

    Oops, the trailing dot got stripped off the URL above. Try this link instead.

  25. comment number 25 by: ViinatoMoh

    John K: But consensus also has to follow certain policies (such as NPOV) – So there are “boundaries” that are established before discussion. Plus consensus is based on how well arguments are developed, and not necessarily how many people argue for side A.

  26. comment number 26 by: john k

    ViinatoMoh

    Having NPOV is a point of view!….however, when there are many involved the NPOV is blurred since everyone has their own take on it. Just like the papers I have written, many solely and a few jointly. One with 6 co-authors which was difficult, owing to the aforementioned. Too many chefs spoil the broth…arguments being developed are one thing, but there cannot be an equal balance amongst many to have an end result of a NPOV. 10 people in a room may reach a consensus, but it wont be an equal 1/10th of each person’s view. Ergo the censuses opinion is a compromise for some. This does not bode well for absolutes.

    That is why a sole voice is better, it is unedited and a such clear. Right or wrong is irrelevant. Then that voice, that sole voice can be thrown about for debate and measured against peers and others.

    Committee decisions, in what ever form, are always disastrous…

  27. comment number 27 by: ViinatoMoh

    John K, are you more in favor of Google Knol? With Knol each person writes an article about topic X, so there are multiple versions of topic X. While others can edit entried made by the original author, the author has to approve the changes.

    Regarding “equal balance” on Wikipedia one of the ways it is established is by how viewpoints are reflected in articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue_weight talks about how, if a viewpoint is held by a very tiny minority of people, it may not be reflected at all whether or not it is true.

    Anyway, if you are into the sole voice approach, then Google Knol may be your cup of tea.

  28. comment number 28 by: john k

    ViinatoMoh

    I’m not aware of Google Knol, nor was I about citizendum too. I actually go to my many encyclopedias and books i have for referencing. Save for last minute up-to-date stuff direct from “authority web-pages”..by this I mean UN or UK Govt etc.

    I am neither for or against sole voice similarly with NPOV types. However, given the choice, i prefer a sole voice, as it is unedited and one knows exactly the position, which can then be debated directly with said person.

    Take encyclopedias for example, have many entries by many authors, but a predominantly a sole overseeing Editor, well mine seem to be this way. This ‘sole editor’ gives the many voices a clear direction. But, it is not perfect…whereas the pure subject matter books I have, are predominantly ‘sole voice’, ie one author. I can then read many, and as such form my own opinion from the evidence presented. Rather than allowing ‘someone else’ to make that decision for me.